Then, again:
"Using government data from January 1979 to December 2004, the effect of minimum wage increases on retail and small business employment is estimated. Specifically, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.9 to 1.1 percent decline in retail employment and a 0.8 to 1.2 percent reduction in small business employment.

These employment effects grow even larger for the low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2.7 to 4.3 percent decline in teen employment in the retail sector, a 5 percent decline in average retail hours worked by all teenagers, and a 2.8 percent decline in retail hours worked by teenagers who remain employed in retail jobs.

Then, again:
"Using government data from January 1979 to December 2004, the effect of minimum wage increases on retail and small business employment is estimated. Specifically, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.9 to 1.1 percent decline in retail employment and a 0.8 to 1.2 percent reduction in small business employment.

These employment effects grow even larger for the low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2.7 to 4.3 percent decline in teen employment in the retail sector, a 5 percent decline in average retail hours worked by all teenagers, and a 2.8 percent decline in retail hours worked by teenagers who remain employed in retail jobs.

Shouldn't this only apply to future tax breaks? Wouldn't implementing this now and enforcing to deals already made count as ex post facto law?

What happens when the companies look at the balance sheet and decide either to forgo the tax breaks, (thus only helping the cities bottom line, not the workers) or leave the area entirely? (thus removing the jobs, AND any tax income, both corporate and sales). Companies could just move the store to Jersey, Westchester, or the Island, and still be in the area.

Then, again:
"Using government data from January 1979 to December 2004, the effect of minimum wage increases on retail and small business employment is estimated. Specifically, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.9 to 1.1 percent decline in retail employment and a 0.8 to 1.2 percent reduction in small business employment.

These employment effects grow even larger for the low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2.7 to 4.3 percent decline in teen employment in the retail sector, a 5 percent decline in average retail hours worked by all teenagers, and a 2.8 percent decline in retail hours worked by teenagers who remain employed in retail jobs.

Shouldn't this only apply to future tax breaks? Wouldn't implementing this now and enforcing to deals already made count as ex post facto law?

What happens when the companies look at the balance sheet and decide either to forgo the tax breaks, (thus only helping the cities bottom line, not the workers) or leave the area entirely? (thus removing the jobs, AND any tax income, both corporate and sales). Companies could just move the store to Jersey, Westchester, or the Island, and still be in the area.

Click to expand...

"leave the area entirely? (thus removing the jobs...."
Only leaving the area removes jobs?

So....does this imply that you care not to hazard a guess as to whether or not mandating higher wages for entry level jobs is a positive or negative factor in job creation?

So....does this imply that you care not to hazard a guess as to whether or not mandating higher wages for entry level jobs is a positive or negative factor in job creation?

Click to expand...

It seems so obvious doesn't it!! The higher the wage or price the more expensive it is, and so the less of it people can afford. This is why for example a Ford sells more than a Rolls Royce or why the higher the wage the fewer people employers can afford to employ.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand even that so conservatives are always in the role of kindergarten teacher

Then, again:
"Using government data from January 1979 to December 2004, the effect of minimum wage increases on retail and small business employment is estimated. Specifically, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.9 to 1.1 percent decline in retail employment and a 0.8 to 1.2 percent reduction in small business employment.

These employment effects grow even larger for the low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2.7 to 4.3 percent decline in teen employment in the retail sector, a 5 percent decline in average retail hours worked by all teenagers, and a 2.8 percent decline in retail hours worked by teenagers who remain employed in retail jobs.

Advocates of increasing minimum wage or 'living wages" tend to pretend that there are numerous people out in the world trying to support a family on the minimum wage.

In reality, slightly more than 2% of employed people work at minimum wage. Many are teenagers working for fun money. Most are not people trying to raise a family.

It's a feel-good tactic to pretend that somehow the government is helping the working poor, when it really has no effect on adults with a family, other than to increase their costs of goods and services.

Then, again:
"Using government data from January 1979 to December 2004, the effect of minimum wage increases on retail and small business employment is estimated. Specifically, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.9 to 1.1 percent decline in retail employment and a 0.8 to 1.2 percent reduction in small business employment.

These employment effects grow even larger for the low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2.7 to 4.3 percent decline in teen employment in the retail sector, a 5 percent decline in average retail hours worked by all teenagers, and a 2.8 percent decline in retail hours worked by teenagers who remain employed in retail jobs.

Shouldn't this only apply to future tax breaks? Wouldn't implementing this now and enforcing to deals already made count as ex post facto law?

What happens when the companies look at the balance sheet and decide either to forgo the tax breaks, (thus only helping the cities bottom line, not the workers) or leave the area entirely? (thus removing the jobs, AND any tax income, both corporate and sales). Companies could just move the store to Jersey, Westchester, or the Island, and still be in the area.

Click to expand...

"leave the area entirely? (thus removing the jobs...."
Only leaving the area removes jobs?

So....does this imply that you care not to hazard a guess as to whether or not mandating higher wages for entry level jobs is a positive or negative factor in job creation?

Click to expand...

If the company chooses to remain, it would probably have an effect on how many people they employ. The increase in cost of buisness has to come from somewhere, and the choices are overall salaries, material costs, increased prices, lower profit.

Politicians with the usual desire to look as though they know what they are doing, are eager to impress entry-level workers...even if the bill would be counterproductive in terms of creating jobs....

1. After weeks of sniping between labor advocates and business leaders, a City Council committee will hold a hearing Tuesday on a controversial bill to boost salaries for workers.

2. The &#8220;living wage&#8221; bill, as it is called, would force businesses that get tax breaks from the city to pay workers $10 an hour, plus benefits &#8212; up from the federal minimum hourly wage of $7.25.

Then, again:
"Using government data from January 1979 to December 2004, the effect of minimum wage increases on retail and small business employment is estimated. Specifically, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.9 to 1.1 percent decline in retail employment and a 0.8 to 1.2 percent reduction in small business employment.

These employment effects grow even larger for the low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2.7 to 4.3 percent decline in teen employment in the retail sector, a 5 percent decline in average retail hours worked by all teenagers, and a 2.8 percent decline in retail hours worked by teenagers who remain employed in retail jobs.

While emotionally a $10.00 minimum "living" wage requirement sounds and feels like the right thing to do for people, intellectually it is the wrong thing to do for people as it has been proven to reduce the total jobs in the job market.

Its not some theory or some "political" position to hold. There are actual numbers to back up the statement that a mandatory raise of 10% (which is less than a dollar right now) will cause ~1% decrease in the total available jobs in the retail and service industries.

Then, again:
"Using government data from January 1979 to December 2004, the effect of minimum wage increases on retail and small business employment is estimated. Specifically, a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 0.9 to 1.1 percent decline in retail employment and a 0.8 to 1.2 percent reduction in small business employment.

These employment effects grow even larger for the low-skilled employees most affected by minimum wage increases. A 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated with a 2.7 to 4.3 percent decline in teen employment in the retail sector, a 5 percent decline in average retail hours worked by all teenagers, and a 2.8 percent decline in retail hours worked by teenagers who remain employed in retail jobs.

While emotionally a $10.00 minimum "living" wage requirement sounds and feels like the right thing to do for people, intellectually it is the wrong thing to do for people as it has been proven to reduce the total jobs in the job market.

Its not some theory or some "political" position to hold. There are actual numbers to back up the statement that a mandatory raise of 10% (which is less than a dollar right now) will cause ~1% decrease in the total available jobs in the retail and service industries.

Links? Look at the first post I quoted people the links are there

Click to expand...

Your post, and the two above yours, make the point which seems pellucidly intuitive.

But, what does our agreement say about the 'studies' that academics do to prove all sorts of Left-wing talking points?

Your post, and the two above yours, make the point which seems pellucidly intuitive.

But, what does our agreement say about the 'studies' that academics do to prove all sorts of Left-wing talking points?

Click to expand...

That P.T. Barnum was right?

I'm not entirely sure when it happened, I just know that it did happen.
At some point in the not too distant past a large portion of the public decided that it was easier to delegate personal choice to 536 people, rather than be adult enough to care for themselves and their fellow community.
536 people.
435 representatives.
100 senators.
1 president.

But wait, there are 9 people that will supposedly protect us from the 536 that may make a bad decision.
9 supreme court justices.

The 545 have failed to fulfill their oaths to the constitution and to us.
They do not have the authority to determine what one man must pay another for services rendered.

Your post, and the two above yours, make the point which seems pellucidly intuitive.

But, what does our agreement say about the 'studies' that academics do to prove all sorts of Left-wing talking points?

Click to expand...

That P.T. Barnum was right?

I'm not entirely sure when it happened, I just know that it did happen.
At some point in the not too distant past a large portion of the public decided that it was easier to delegate personal choice to 536 people, rather than be adult enough to care for themselves and their fellow community.
536 people.
435 representatives.
100 senators.
1 president.

But wait, there are 9 people that will supposedly protect us from the 536 that may make a bad decision.
9 supreme court justices.

The 545 have failed to fulfill their oaths to the constitution and to us.
They do not have the authority to determine what one man must pay another for services rendered.

Click to expand...

Actually...the essence of the Constitution is that each branch is responsible to try the constitutionality of laws.
That is why the courts give weight to the assumption that a law is constitutional unless there is a an unconstitutional element on which they can hang a decison. The President should make such a determination as well when he signs a bill.

The problem is that government is made of men, with the human foibles that veers toward corruption.
They have all ignored the checks and balances to do what benefits them.
Careers over country.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
Alexander Tyler 1787
{There is some question as to the authenticity of the attribution. But not the premise}

Mounty....are we being too serious today, ...what with everyone else so loggy from turkey-overdose?

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!